Gaseous Anomaly:More seriously, note the "unsecured" in my response. For this hypothetical debtor, default is an option. There's a cost (ruined ability to get more credit) but that might be just fine with him, depending on his situation.

Imagine I take out a loan of 100K. I hire 10 people at 10K a year. They bring in revenue of of 11K each. So after 1 year, I now have 10K more than I did last year. After 10 years I will have repaid all my debt and my guys all still have jobs.

This is basic, basic business stuff. I mean, seriously.

Hey, ya know what, it sounds like your investment there has an ROI greater than one. I wonder if I have ever said anything about whether or not it is good to spend on things with an ROI greater than one. I just might have, but I can't remember.

Imagine you take out a loan of 100K. You hire 10 people at 10K a year. They bring in revenue of 0K each. So after 1 year, you are 110K in debt (interest and all that). You have to fire all of your people. Government has to bail you out, and raises taxes by 110K. You've just taken 10K out of the economy, and actually destroyed jobs.

Ok, so you support just taking out debt for, like, food stamps?

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 635x389]

Isn't it funny how most of the GOP ideas are toward the bottom of that chart.

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears:MattStafford: If the government ever slowed down defense spending, these people are trained for jobs that don't exist in the private economy.

If you can build an airplane for the government, you can build an airplane for the private sector. But, to take it down to a more granular level, if you can produce specialty plastic for the crazy new plane the government wants, you can produce that plastic for any number of private interests. Same with electronics. Same with computers. DARPA created the ARPANET as a purely military project, and as a result, we have the internet. The most powerful economic driver we've produced, like, ever. To say that ending government spending results in jobs simply disappearing forever belies a failure to understand how interconnected our economy actually is, and fails to see the simple connections between the military, space program, university science departments, and the private sector. There is no clear and clean line of demarcation between the government and the private sector, because everything is interconnected.

I completely agree. The reason why defense contractors do not move out of defense-related products to consumer products is because there's greater uncertainty in consumer products. With defense, they have one buyer (or one type of buyer: the governments of the world), and if they just know enough people involved in the purchasing, they can pretty much ensure the purchase. Going out into the big, bad world of consumer products, they have to identify the proper market segment, how to price things, what things to make that would be cool to sell, who and where the channels are to get the products to market, and so on.

The defense contractors have a lot of very smart and clever folks making insane and novel products. But they don't have a marketing arm that can effectively determine what the market (the consumers) want or need, and produce items for that market.

I for one would love to have a better stereo amplifier. I'm guessing those guys in signal analysis and such could probably make one. But can they make a great stereo amplifier that is reasonable in price (sub $500) and sell millions? They could, but there's a risk involved. Instead, they took the lower risk of bribing officials (legally, they're no bribing, but effectively, that's exactly what they're doing) to sign for purchase of their war equipment.

Imagine you take out a loan of 100K. You hire 9 people at 10K a year. They bring in revenue of 0K each. So after 1 year, you take the other 10K in and buy Powerball tickets. You win. You don't have to fire anybody. Government doesn't have to to bail you out, and you can pay your taxes. You've just taken 10K out of the economy, and next year you can hire 9 more people and buy more powerball tickets.

Honestly, MattStafford, that makes as much sense as anything you've posted here.

MattStafford:And I have problems with private debt as well. Student loan debt is a huge issue. Financial debt is a huge issue. Mortgage debt is still a huge issue.

Suppose we grant that there's "too much" debt everywhere, pull on our national bootstraps, and pay things down so that total debt is a tiny fraction of the size of the economy.

How does one then save for the future?

If you want to consume less than you produce, you must buy/build something of lasting value, or lend. (Directly or indirectly). The market will accept only so many houses, and there are only so many commodities.

Galloping Galoshes:What, it's those bad businessmen and women who aren't hiring enough people, even though they're not sure when the economy will improve and they can pay for all the new employees they hired?

Currently corporate profits are the highest they've ever been. They have the money to increase wages which would drive demand. They have the money to hire back the people they laid off, so instead of having 10 people make 100 things, they can have 12 making 100 things. The companies are making as much stuff now as they did before, except now they're trying to get away with doing it with fewer people.

It's funny that GWB never comes up once in any comment by a Conservative when discussing the economy. You'd figure that if Republican trickle-down economics worked so well they'd be more than happy to give shining example after example from the previous Republican administration. It's almost like they are trying to erase GWB from history. I know they are too intellectually honest to do that though. So there must be some other reason why we never hear about the economic successes of GWB?

MattStafford:Imagine you take out a loan of 100K. You hire 10 people at 10K a year. They bring in revenue of 0K each. So after 1 year, you are 110K in debt (interest and all that). You have to fire all of your people. Government has to bail you out, and raises taxes by 110K. You've just taken 10K out of the economy, and actually destroyed jobs.

you're missing the fact that ROI works differently for the government than it does for private entities.

The government hires 10 people at $10k a year. First of all, they get a portion of that back in taxes - we'll call it 10%.Those people then spend that remaining $9k each, netting the government $900 on the total transactions.Those people spend the remaining $8,100 raising $810 in revenues for the government...until eventually the government has recouped the entire expenditure while ALSO stimulating economic demand to encourage organic economics growth which leads to future revenues

MattStafford:You actually asking me to believe that going further into debt to decrease employment is somehow going to reduce our debt. It is insanity.

No, it's basic economics. It's sort of like how if you lose your job, you might borrow money from your parents in order to go back to school and get a better degree, to get a better job and then pay your parents back.

MattStafford:I've said I support necessary infrastructure construction, funded by debt. Things that aren't productive and are funded by debt are destroying this country.

Tell you what, how about we take this chance to agree on something. I agree we should not be spending more than we take in. Let's just agree taxing the wealthy and the corporations is the best thing to do right now. Corporate profits are at record levels, seems the obvious place to go. Sound good?

skullkrusher:MattStafford: Imagine you take out a loan of 100K. You hire 10 people at 10K a year. They bring in revenue of 0K each. So after 1 year, you are 110K in debt (interest and all that). You have to fire all of your people. Government has to bail you out, and raises taxes by 110K. You've just taken 10K out of the economy, and actually destroyed jobs.

you're missing the fact that ROI works differently for the government than it does for private entities.

The government hires 10 people at $10k a year. First of all, they get a portion of that back in taxes - we'll call it 10%.Those people then spend that remaining $9k each, netting the government $900 on the total transactions.Those people spend the remaining $8,100 raising $810 in revenues for the government...until eventually the government has recouped the entire expenditure while ALSO stimulating economic demand to encourage organic economics growth which leads to future revenues

Mrtraveler01:skullkrusher: Mrtraveler01: lennavan: What's so wrong with (C) and why do you feel it results in job losses elsewhere?

Because you're stealing money from the job creators by gun point obviously.

Matt hasn't said anything remotely similar to that. You are much better than that, Mr T

Sorry, I just get tired of that "Government can only hurt the economy" rhetoric that he seems to be peddling.

he hasn't said that. He thinks spending on unproductive projects is a bad thing and he's right, it is far less desirable than the alternative. He's just missing how even spending on frivolous things can drive economic growth leading to increased revenues

Imagine I take out a loan of 100K. I hire 10 people at 10K a year. They bring in revenue of of 11K each. So after 1 year, I now have 10K more than I did last year. After 10 years I will have repaid all my debt and my guys all still have jobs.

This is basic, basic business stuff. I mean, seriously.

Hey, ya know what, it sounds like your investment there has an ROI greater than one. I wonder if I have ever said anything about whether or not it is good to spend on things with an ROI greater than one. I just might have, but I can't remember.

Imagine you take out a loan of 100K. You hire 10 people at 10K a year. They bring in revenue of 0K each. So after 1 year, you are 110K in debt (interest and all that). You have to fire all of your people. Government has to bail you out, and raises taxes by 110K. You've just taken 10K out of the economy, and actually destroyed jobs.

Because that 10K in interest... just got lit on fire? Where did it go? Even if it merely got a gold toilet seat for a bank exec's bathroom, it's hardly lost.

DamnYankees:MattStafford: You actually asking me to believe that going further into debt to decrease employment is somehow going to reduce our debt. It is insanity.

No, it's basic economics. It's sort of like how if you lose your job, you might borrow money from your parents in order to go back to school and get a better degree, to get a better job and then pay your parents back.

This, to you, is insanity?

Oh, they'll have no problem borrowing money again if Romney gets the White House.

This jobs report was predictably horrible. Now we get another round of QE which is going to do nothing more than artificially prop up the stock market, raise food prices, raise gas prices, and stall out the economy again in a few months as all the middle class discretionary income gets eaten up. (like it has done every year for the last 3 farking years!)

Despite the drama over the last few days, this president's economic record is pathetic. We are not recovering, we are treading water. Only cool-aid drinkers and fools believe the nonsense about 4.5 million jobs he was selling. Hell we lost 5 million, so in reality we're not even back to go yet, which is absolutely pathetic if we are actually in this supposed recovery.

Lets break it down.

The Reagan recovery.

The Clinton recovery

the Oba-meh recovery

You can polish turds, slay strawmen, and turn a convention into a big emotional Oprah rally, it doesn't negate the fact that Mr. Obama has no idea how to fix the economy and is floundering because his hype is wearing out.

Pincy:DamnYankees: MattStafford: You actually asking me to believe that going further into debt to decrease employment is somehow going to reduce our debt. It is insanity.

No, it's basic economics. It's sort of like how if you lose your job, you might borrow money from your parents in order to go back to school and get a better degree, to get a better job and then pay your parents back.

This, to you, is insanity?

Oh, they'll have no problem borrowing money again if Romney gets the White House.

read the thread and see if you can return with something interesting to say. Thanks.

Pincy:tenpoundsofcheese: KarmicDisaster: tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: No, the economy is creating jobs, fewer this year than last year which means the economy has no faith in whatever it is that 0bama claims he is doing to create jobs.

Because it's all Obama's fault and nothing to do with market forces in general.

Got it!

Good, you are learning. Now you should try to understand what influences market forces.

If companies see an anti-business, anti-success President who doesn't have a clue about how to improve the economy, they don't have faith in the economic strength and they don't hire.

Actually, as I mentioned before, the slope of the recovery under Obama on the unemployment chart above is the same as other growth periods. Jobs are not being created at a slower rate.

Now if only the Republicans hadn't filibustered his jobs plan. I wonder what the slope would have looked like then?

Frankly Obama's prognosis skills are severely under developed. Some 40 months later after passing his stimulus bill saying the passage would prevent us going over 8% unemployment and yet here we still are just might be an indication that his jobs bill might have also under performed. Let us not also forget his estimate for the ACA cost when he was pushing that.

But it always makes for better political theater when you can blame someone else.

skullkrusher:Mrtraveler01: skullkrusher: Mrtraveler01: lennavan: What's so wrong with (C) and why do you feel it results in job losses elsewhere?

Because you're stealing money from the job creators by gun point obviously.

Matt hasn't said anything remotely similar to that. You are much better than that, Mr T

Sorry, I just get tired of that "Government can only hurt the economy" rhetoric that he seems to be peddling.

he hasn't said that. He thinks spending on unproductive projects is a bad thing and he's right, it is far less desirable than the alternative. He's just missing how even spending on frivolous things can drive economic growth leading to increased revenues

But he seems to think that "it's more likely for the government to do this than private industry". Like I said, travel though the Midwest and tell me that "it's more likely for government to distort the economy".

Mrtraveler01:skullkrusher: MattStafford: Imagine you take out a loan of 100K. You hire 10 people at 10K a year. They bring in revenue of 0K each. So after 1 year, you are 110K in debt (interest and all that). You have to fire all of your people. Government has to bail you out, and raises taxes by 110K. You've just taken 10K out of the economy, and actually destroyed jobs.

you're missing the fact that ROI works differently for the government than it does for private entities.

The government hires 10 people at $10k a year. First of all, they get a portion of that back in taxes - we'll call it 10%.Those people then spend that remaining $9k each, netting the government $900 on the total transactions.Those people spend the remaining $8,100 raising $810 in revenues for the government...until eventually the government has recouped the entire expenditure while ALSO stimulating economic demand to encourage organic economics growth which leads to future revenues

Stop making sense!

/Now you know why I was snarky to him.

he hasn't said anything trollish or outrageous. He's just off on some fundamental stuff. This is how discussions are supposed to go. No one being a dick for no reason, having a disagreement.

CPennypacker:It dipped all the way to 10 in October of 2009. its up from 10. Are you suggesting that between the end of January and the end of October 2009, Obama drafted legislation, passed it, and it took full effect, dropping the unemployment rate by another 1.7%?

Are you suggesting that Obama and the Demoicrats were wrong when he said that his Stimulus package passed in February of 2009 would see "nearly 75% of the funds released in the first year" and that it would "stop the job loss?". The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" from Christina Romer, chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, the vice president's top economic adviser predicted that with the stimulus, unemployment rate would peak at just under 8 percent in 2009.(It hit 10% in October of that year).

The stimulus package was enacted in February 2009 and signed into law on February 17, 2009, by President Barack Obama. He promised the stimulus would keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent. It cost around 800 BILIION dollars.

The numbers are the numbers. Under Obama, joblessness has never been below 8 percent, and it peaked at 10 percent in October 2009. He said himself that if he couldn't get the unemployment rate down below 8% he would be a one term president.

I don't care about 'fault'. I'm simply stating that Obama said he could fix it, he tried to fix it, he was given 800 Billion dollars to fix it with, and it's not fixed.

This is not a success story. I know we all wish he had been more succesful than he was. But wishing doesn't change the reality that the fact that unemployment today is pretty much where it was four years ago.

DamnYankees:MattStafford: You actually asking me to believe that going further into debt to decrease employment is somehow going to reduce our debt. It is insanity.

No, it's basic economics. It's sort of like how if you lose your job, you might borrow money from your parents in order to go back to school and get a better degree, to get a better job and then pay your parents back.

This, to you, is insanity?

Yes, because the economics you're describing are 'unproductive' borrowing which doesn't actually have a definition but is in stark contrast to every possible historical example you can think of which are all 'productive' borrowing.

Mrtraveler01:skullkrusher: Mrtraveler01: skullkrusher: Mrtraveler01: lennavan: What's so wrong with (C) and why do you feel it results in job losses elsewhere?

Because you're stealing money from the job creators by gun point obviously.

Matt hasn't said anything remotely similar to that. You are much better than that, Mr T

Sorry, I just get tired of that "Government can only hurt the economy" rhetoric that he seems to be peddling.

he hasn't said that. He thinks spending on unproductive projects is a bad thing and he's right, it is far less desirable than the alternative. He's just missing how even spending on frivolous things can drive economic growth leading to increased revenues

But he seems to think that "it's more likely for the government to do this than private industry". Like I said, travel though the Midwest and tell me that "it's more likely for government to distort the economy".

MFL:This jobs report was predictably horrible. Now we get another round of QE which is going to do nothing more than artificially prop up the stock market, raise food prices, raise gas prices, and stall out the economy again in a few months as all the middle class discretionary income gets eaten up. (like it has done every year for the last 3 farking years!)

Despite the drama over the last few days, this president's economic record is pathetic. We are not recovering, we are treading water. Only cool-aid drinkers and fools believe the nonsense about 4.5 million jobs he was selling. Hell we lost 5 million, so in reality we're not even back to go yet, which is absolutely pathetic if we are actually in this supposed recovery.

Lets break it down.

The Reagan recovery.[www.nationalreview.com image 630x378]

The Clinton recovery[www.nationalreview.com image 630x378]

the Oba-meh recovery[www.nationalreview.com image 630x378]

You can polish turds, slay strawmen, and turn a convention into a big emotional Oprah rally, it doesn't negate the fact that Mr. Obama has no idea how to fix the economy and is floundering because his hype is wearing out.

You know when you have a ratio it compares two things right. Do you know what that ratio compares? Do you know what it tells us? Your remarks lead me to infer that you do not.

Gaseous Anomaly:People live forever? And get to decide how much money they make, like elected governments decide on the level of taxation? ... ok then.

The difference the ability to print money makes is that there is literally zero risk of involuntary default when lending to the US government. We might decide to default because we think printing the necessary money or raising the necessary taxation would be worse. We might decide to default because of political dysfunction. But when you lend a person money they might turn out to be unable to pay it back; that can't happen to the US government.

Governments live forever? How is the HRE doing these days?

And no, government don't get to decide how much money they make. They face revenue constraints just like any other entity. And paying our debts with devalued dollars might as well be default.

Pincy:I don't understand why Obama doesn't just spend the money he needs to stimulate the economy and create jobs? It's almost like he can't just spend money but has to ask permission from somebody else.

I know Americans are supposed to have a short memory and all, but surely you have not forgotten that Ogama asked for and was given 800 BILLION dollars? Just for the one stimulus. Not counting the TARP money, Auto-Bailouts, and various others?

skullkrusher:Mrtraveler01: skullkrusher: MattStafford: Imagine you take out a loan of 100K. You hire 10 people at 10K a year. They bring in revenue of 0K each. So after 1 year, you are 110K in debt (interest and all that). You have to fire all of your people. Government has to bail you out, and raises taxes by 110K. You've just taken 10K out of the economy, and actually destroyed jobs.

you're missing the fact that ROI works differently for the government than it does for private entities.

The government hires 10 people at $10k a year. First of all, they get a portion of that back in taxes - we'll call it 10%.Those people then spend that remaining $9k each, netting the government $900 on the total transactions.Those people spend the remaining $8,100 raising $810 in revenues for the government...until eventually the government has recouped the entire expenditure while ALSO stimulating economic demand to encourage organic economics growth which leads to future revenues

Stop making sense!

/Now you know why I was snarky to him.

he hasn't said anything trollish or outrageous. He's just off on some fundamental stuff. This is how discussions are supposed to go. No one being a dick for no reason, having a disagreement.

MattStafford:If Apple took out a billion dollar loan, then it would be extremely damaging to the economy. And that money isn't just sitting in a vault in Cupertino, sorry to burst your bubble, but it is out doing things.

Apple's money is certainly out doing things. Things that bring a profit. If that profit is greater than the cost of borrowing money to do more things, then wouldn't they be stupid to use their own money? Even if the things they did with the borrowed money produced nothing of value?

BojanglesPaladin:CPennypacker: It dipped all the way to 10 in October of 2009. its up from 10. Are you suggesting that between the end of January and the end of October 2009, Obama drafted legislation, passed it, and it took full effect, dropping the unemployment rate by another 1.7%?

Are you suggesting that Obama and the Demoicrats were wrong when he said that his Stimulus package passed in February of 2009 would see "nearly 75% of the funds released in the first year" and that it would "stop the job loss?". The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" from Christina Romer, chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, the vice president's top economic adviser predicted that with the stimulus, unemployment rate would peak at just under 8 percent in 2009.(It hit 10% in October of that year).

The stimulus package was enacted in February 2009 and signed into law on February 17, 2009, by President Barack Obama. He promised the stimulus would keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent. It cost around 800 BILIION dollars.

The numbers are the numbers. Under Obama, joblessness has never been below 8 percent, and it peaked at 10 percent in October 2009. He said himself that if he couldn't get the unemployment rate down below 8% he would be a one term president.

I don't care about 'fault'. I'm simply stating that Obama said he could fix it, he tried to fix it, he was given 800 Billion dollars to fix it with, and it's not fixed.

This is not a success story. I know we all wish he had been more succesful than he was. But wishing doesn't change the reality that the fact that unemployment today is pretty much wher ...

When those projections were made, they were based on assumptions about the depths of the recession that were later discovered to be inaccurate. The recession was way worse than they projected. CBO reports characterize the stimulus as having a positive effect; if anything, he didn't spend enough.

skullkrusher:he hasn't said anything trollish or outrageous. He's just off on some fundamental stuff.

I think a key part of his confusion is the inability to understand that on individual debt examples, what's good for the economy is irrelevant to the person in debt. If you borrow a million dollars and pay people to dig and fill holes for you, their receiving of salary does nothing for you, because you make money only off your own commerce.

WhyteRaven74:Galloping Galoshes: What, it's those bad businessmen and women who aren't hiring enough people, even though they're not sure when the economy will improve and they can pay for all the new employees they hired?

Currently corporate profits are the highest they've ever been. They have the money to increase wages which would drive demand. They have the money to hire back the people they laid off, so instead of having 10 people make 100 things, they can have 12 making 100 things. The companies are making as much stuff now as they did before, except now they're trying to get away with doing it with fewer people.

Some would call that efficiency. Businesses are in business to make money. Employees are an end to that means. That's not an evil; that's a fact. People spend their money to open a business as an investment. Open a business. You'll see what I mean. Even a cooperative must maintain some level of efficiency.

MFL:This jobs report was predictably horrible. Now we get another round of QE which is going to do nothing more than artificially prop up the stock market, raise food prices, raise gas prices, and stall out the economy again in a few months as all the middle class discretionary income gets eaten up. (like it has done every year for the last 3 farking years!)

DamnYankees:You do realize that we all agree its better to spend it on more productive things. But it's more productive than having those unemployed people do absolutely nothing and basically just be excluded from the economy.

NO IT ISN'T! It is bad for the economy! My God, I just don't understand you guys.

"Let's go billions into debt so we can pay people to do absolutely nothing. That is sure to make our country stronger in the long run." - you

If you can't understand the insanity of that statement, I don't know if there is any helping you. I really don't.

It's almost as if something pretty bad happened to the economy in 2008...

Yes, we elected 0bama.

Average number of jobs created per month in 2011: 153,000Average number of jobs created per month in 2012: 139,000

Conclusion: but, but, but, bbbbuush!

Whatever 0bama thinks he is doing to create jobs has failed.

Rather, it seems like the GOP obstruction tactics are succeeding. Now, if you like to see a successful program to scuttle the economy, go right ahead a vote GOP. If you want to see a successful program to grow the economy, then vote them out and let Obama work is plans.

Headso:MFL: doesn't negate the fact that Mr. Obama has no idea how to fix the economy and is floundering because his hype is wearing out.

See how these stories are bigger than just the numbers in a vacuum skullkrusher?

See exhibit A) known troll. Also, I beg the court to ignore the fact we were talking about the objective interpretation of data. These prelim job numbers aren't gonna fix themselves and we got an election to win!

sprawl15:skullkrusher: he hasn't said anything trollish or outrageous. He's just off on some fundamental stuff.

I think a key part of his confusion is the inability to understand that on individual debt examples, what's good for the economy is irrelevant to the person in debt. If you borrow a million dollars and pay people to dig and fill holes for you, their receiving of salary does nothing for you, because you make money only off your own commerce.

Mrtraveler01:skullkrusher: Mrtraveler01: skullkrusher: MattStafford: Imagine you take out a loan of 100K. You hire 10 people at 10K a year. They bring in revenue of 0K each. So after 1 year, you are 110K in debt (interest and all that). You have to fire all of your people. Government has to bail you out, and raises taxes by 110K. You've just taken 10K out of the economy, and actually destroyed jobs.

you're missing the fact that ROI works differently for the government than it does for private entities.

The government hires 10 people at $10k a year. First of all, they get a portion of that back in taxes - we'll call it 10%.Those people then spend that remaining $9k each, netting the government $900 on the total transactions.Those people spend the remaining $8,100 raising $810 in revenues for the government...until eventually the government has recouped the entire expenditure while ALSO stimulating economic demand to encourage organic economics growth which leads to future revenues

Stop making sense!

/Now you know why I was snarky to him.

he hasn't said anything trollish or outrageous. He's just off on some fundamental stuff. This is how discussions are supposed to go. No one being a dick for no reason, having a disagreement.

Sorry

Fark has made me quite dickish lately it seems.

hehe it is a soul deadening place. Some of these mooks have no hope. You can still be saved, my son ;)

More_Like_A_Stain:Apple's money is certainly out doing things. Things that bring a profit. If that profit is greater than the cost of borrowing money to do more things, then wouldn't they be stupid to use their own money? Even if the things they did with the borrowed money produced nothing of value?

This is particularly ignorant considering that this is exactly how businesses do business. They don't fund new project with money that would otherwise just sit in a basement. They take out loans and have revenue projections. Very, very few setups in the contracting world allow one to have initial investments already paid for on spinup - payments are tied to events as much as practicable.